Search the Community

Just a curiosity question from a budding actuary In ASOP 27 under "3.9.2 COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS" it states that an actuary, for qualified pension plan funding valuations, "may be precluded by applicable laws or regulations from anticipating future plan amendments or future cost-of-living adjustments in IRC limits." This is consistent with what I have always seen done for valuations I work on, which include two plans that provide automatic COLA increases to benefits and have plenty of participants with benefits limited by section 415. When calculating the Funding Target we project the COLA increases in the expected benefit streams for current retirees, actives, and TVs, but constrained to the current plan year limits. I am just curious what "laws or regulations" the ASOP is referring to that prevents us from projecting the limits for funding purposses? In the Gray Book's response to question 1995-11, which asked if future changes in Section 415 limits and compensation limits due to indexing should be treated as plan amendments. The IRS response was "The current position is that all changes in actuarial liabilities due to the section 401(a)(17) and 415 limits are to be treated as plan amendments, even the increases that automatically occur under a plan’s terms." Is this somehow maybe tied to the answer? I primarily work on single employer plans, which are required to use an accrued benefit cost method. So I thought maybe this tied to the definition of an accrued benefit. But I think ASOP 27 covers multi plans too right? And they are not restricted to a specific cost method? So is there perhaps a definition or discussion somewhere around the provisions for calculating liabilities for funding purposes under the applicable parts of the code (430/431?)? I appreciate any insight anyone can offer. I have already spent a long, but fruitful amount of time going down regulation rabbit holes this last week. While I very much enjoy my time descending into them I could use a little help with this one. Thanks!

The plan sponsor for a law firm 401k plan is set up as an LLC taxed as a partnership - equally owned (1/3) by three different Affiliated/Participating employers all taxed as an S-corp. The LLC employees a few non-owners, and each of the 3 S-corp partners are 100% owners of his or her respective firm. Since the three affiliated, participating employers (S-Corps) pay their owners W-2 compensation, the W-2 compensations are eligible for deferrals and contributions for the plan. For Pre-tax deferral contributions, payroll deductions are withheld for the owners (W-2 comp) and funded by the individual S-corp. It's a Safe Harbor match plan with a Plan Year/annual determination period for the match. Since the pre-tax deferral contribution will be deducted via payroll and funded from the owners' individual S-corp, does the corresponding Safe Harbor match need to also be funded from the individual S-corp. - or does the match need to be funded by the LLC taxed as a partnership?

Can you check both the 'trust' and 'general assets' boxes on line 9? A Health and Welfare plan with a trust (VEBA) pays for some expenses out of the trust, but pays others out of general company assets. Would you check both? TIA

A client with a traditional DB plan is interested in filing a for a funding waiver. I have tried to explain some of the pitfalls, but they are still interested in pursuing the waiver. One of the biggest disadvantages (based on my own experience) is the IRS makes no promise on when they will respond to the application. This raises the question of how the plan should be funded while the waiver application is pending. Should we assume it will be approved and run the risk of missed contributions, later quarterlies and excise tax if the waiver is rejected? Or should they continue funding assuming the waiver won't be approved (in which case what is the point)? I am interested to hear both about any guidance as well as what people have seen/done in the past.

I have a cash balance plan with only a husband and wife (they have no employees). Since there are no NHCEs, does that plan still have to be 100% funded in order for one of them to take a distribution?

We are a TPA firm that administers Cafeteria Plans for public employees that are exempt from ERISA requirements. Currently, our clients hold their own checking accounts with which the funds are held. We are looking to offer a funding method where we, as the TPA, have a checking account that the client's funds are held in. What are our funding options that will keep us compliant with IRC and California banking laws? Because our clients are exempt from ERISA, but our TPA firm isn't, do we have to comply with ERISA requirements if we decide to hold the funds for them? We are considering opening one business checking account to hold all of our client's funds with the idea that we would not dip into one client's funds if another falls short, but I am concerned with the commingling of funds and think it would be cleaner (and maybe the only compliant option) if we held separate checking accounts for each client. If we were to open a Trust, could we commingle different Plan assets then? Any help would be very much appreciated.